Brexit

[TGHusker]

Talk of Texas leaving the Union is not a good idea, except it might perhaps get a number of not so desirable football teams out of the NCAA. But booting California out would be great. It would end for decades any remote possibility of the Democrats winning the Presidency and or any control of the House of Representatives. Of course, if we sold California to Mexico, we wouldn't have to deport about 7 million illegals either (they'd already be in Mexico again). Both would be dramatic steps forward for the country.

Trump may want to quote you on that and borrow that Calif idea.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

But back to Brexit.

Can anybody explain what is fundementally different economically whether the UK stayed in the EU or left?

Seems to me nothing fundementally changes. They still consume and still produce and will find markets to sell what they produce. Why are most acting like it's the end of the world? I guess I don't get it. Seems like the typical running around with arms flailing saying the sky is falling when it hasn't moved an inch.

It seems to me that GB will not be subsidizing the economies of countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Especially Greece.

That is a good point. GB will no longer have to help fund those other failed economies. I guess that is a fundamental change in their favor. Hopefully the money they save there can be used to replace any help they were receiving from the EU.

 

 

Or they can roll that money up into their National Health Services like they promised the voters they would during the election.

 

Oh wait, Nigel Farange already backtracked on that the following morning.

[VectorVictor]

People aren't throwing caution to the wind. They are advocating for a government to start picking winners and losers, and unsurprisingly, they want to be the winners.

 

Populists in this country are frankly too stupid to even understand what is the "status quo" and how to get rid of it. Trump supporters don't want to compete. They want things handed to them. Much like trump had his wealth handed to him.

 

It's the pure hypocrisy of the Trumpinites that is most annoying to me. They want as much government take over and control as any left wing progressive. They just want the control exercised for their benefit.

 

Well said and on point.

 

And it's typically the baby boomers, uneducated, and religious zealots (may be redundant depending on your viewpoints) that occupy this space--they don't want overarching government restrictions, except on forcing Christianity on all citizens (e.g. their tireless idiocy on what they think Separation of Church and State means vs. what it truly is), restricting abortion access due to their religious beliefs, governing private sexual practice and relationships (e.g. sodomy laws of the South, anti-Homosexual marriage and rights bills in the South, restrictions on contraceptive access), and so on.

 

It's like the idiots that keep saying Texas should secede because of "States Rights" bulls**t--we already tried that little experiment with States Rights trumping Federal rights years ago. It's called the Articles of Confederation, and it failed miserably.

[huKSer]

 

 

 

But back to Brexit.

Can anybody explain what is fundementally different economically whether the UK stayed in the EU or left?

Seems to me nothing fundementally changes. They still consume and still produce and will find markets to sell what they produce. Why are most acting like it's the end of the world? I guess I don't get it. Seems like the typical running around with arms flailing saying the sky is falling when it hasn't moved an inch.

It seems to me that GB will not be subsidizing the economies of countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Especially Greece.

That is a good point. GB will no longer have to help fund those other failed economies. I guess that is a fundamental change in their favor. Hopefully the money they save there can be used to replace any help they were receiving from the EU.

 

 

Or they can roll that money up into their National Health Services like they promised the voters they would during the election.

 

Oh wait, Nigel Farange already backtracked on that the following morning.

 

 

The old "bait and switch" ploy - hope they do have a re-vote if only because of this.

 

Wait - BritObamacare is failing? How can that happen?

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

People aren't throwing caution to the wind. They are advocating for a government to start picking winners and losers, and unsurprisingly, they want to be the winners.

 

Populists in this country are frankly too stupid to even understand what is the "status quo" and how to get rid of it. Trump supporters don't want to compete. They want things handed to them. Much like trump had his wealth handed to him.

 

It's the pure hypocrisy of the Trumpinites that is most annoying to me. They want as much government take over and control as any left wing progressive. They just want the control exercised for their benefit.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all.

 

 

No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there.

 

And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest.

 

The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them.

 

Winners & Losers indeed.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

People aren't throwing caution to the wind. They are advocating for a government to start picking winners and losers, and unsurprisingly, they want to be the winners.

 

Populists in this country are frankly too stupid to even understand what is the "status quo" and how to get rid of it. Trump supporters don't want to compete. They want things handed to them. Much like trump had his wealth handed to him.

 

It's the pure hypocrisy of the Trumpinites that is most annoying to me. They want as much government take over and control as any left wing progressive. They just want the control exercised for their benefit.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all.

No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there.

 

And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest.

 

The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them.

 

Winners & Losers indeed.

I was mostly referring to his interpretation of Trump, saying he wants big government, when it's in fact the complete opposite. He's the only candidate in favor of a true capitalism. I think he'd honestly do the right thing and cut social security, but it would be a highly unpopular thing to say.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

People aren't throwing caution to the wind. They are advocating for a government to start picking winners and losers, and unsurprisingly, they want to be the winners.

 

Populists in this country are frankly too stupid to even understand what is the "status quo" and how to get rid of it. Trump supporters don't want to compete. They want things handed to them. Much like trump had his wealth handed to him.

 

It's the pure hypocrisy of the Trumpinites that is most annoying to me. They want as much government take over and control as any left wing progressive. They just want the control exercised for their benefit.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all.

No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there.

 

And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest.

 

The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them.

 

Winners & Losers indeed.

I was mostly referring to his interpretation of Trump, saying he wants big government, when it's in fact the complete opposite. He's the only candidate in favor of a true capitalism. I think he'd honestly do the right thing and cut social security, but it would be a highly unpopular thing to say.

 

 

Yeah, the funny thing about these successful businessmen who claim to hate the federal government is how often they accept government subsidies, profit from government contracts, take advantage of government funded R&D, petition the government for trade protection and come crying to the Justice Department to take anti-trust action against their competitors.

 

While hiding their money on Caribbean islands, f'ing over the American labor force, and generally using their big government influence to create private profit at taxpayer risk.

 

Oh yeah, and hiring low paid immigrants to run their gaudy hotels and casinos, then decrying the flow of immigrants as a threat to all that is America.

 

True capitalism would put your mother on an ice flow and your kids on the assembly line, so let's not over-romanticize its glory.

 

And cutting Social Security would be unpopular only because it's so incredibly stupid.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

 

People aren't throwing caution to the wind. They are advocating for a government to start picking winners and losers, and unsurprisingly, they want to be the winners.

 

Populists in this country are frankly too stupid to even understand what is the "status quo" and how to get rid of it. Trump supporters don't want to compete. They want things handed to them. Much like trump had his wealth handed to him.

 

It's the pure hypocrisy of the Trumpinites that is most annoying to me. They want as much government take over and control as any left wing progressive. They just want the control exercised for their benefit.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all.

No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there.

 

And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest.

 

The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them.

 

Winners & Losers indeed.

I was mostly referring to his interpretation of Trump, saying he wants big government, when it's in fact the complete opposite. He's the only candidate in favor of a true capitalism. I think he'd honestly do the right thing and cut social security, but it would be a highly unpopular thing to say.

Yeah, the funny thing about these successful businessmen who claim to hate the federal government is how often they accept government subsidies, profit from government contracts, take advantage of government funded R&D, petition the government for trade protection and come crying to the Justice Department to take anti-trust action against their competitors.

 

While hiding their money on Caribbean islands, f'ing over the American labor force, and generally using their big government influence to create private profit at taxpayer risk.

 

Oh yeah, and hiring low paid immigrants to run their gaudy hotels and casinos, then decrying the flow of immigrants as a threat to all that is America.

 

True capitalism would put your mother on an ice flow and your kids on the assembly line, so let's not over-romanticize its glory.

 

And cutting Social Security would be unpopular only because it's so incredibly stupid.

Holy sh*t... So incentivizing people to achieve, create wealth, and create opportunities for others to earn money to feed their families is a bad thing? And continuing to take people's hard earned money when they're likely never to see it again (aka ponzi scheme) is a good thing? If this truly is a growing sentiment in America, we're all screwed...

[huKSer]

The problem when people say this candidate will do this and that candidate will do that is something called "Congress" Many things Presidents say they are going to do depend on Congressional agreement.

 

Personally I like it when the President and at least one chamber of Congress are from the opposite parties ensures gridlock. Only bills that are middle ground or obviously necessary are passed.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

People aren't throwing caution to the wind. They are advocating for a government to start picking winners and losers, and unsurprisingly, they want to be the winners.

Populists in this country are frankly too stupid to even understand what is the "status quo" and how to get rid of it. Trump supporters don't want to compete. They want things handed to them. Much like trump had his wealth handed to him.

It's the pure hypocrisy of the Trumpinites that is most annoying to me. They want as much government take over and control as any left wing progressive. They just want the control exercised for their benefit.

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all.

No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there.

 

And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest.

 

The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them.

 

Winners & Losers indeed.

I was mostly referring to his interpretation of Trump, saying he wants big government, when it's in fact the complete opposite. He's the only candidate in favor of a true capitalism. I think he'd honestly do the right thing and cut social security, but it would be a highly unpopular thing to say.

Yeah, the funny thing about these successful businessmen who claim to hate the federal government is how often they accept government subsidies, profit from government contracts, take advantage of government funded R&D, petition the government for trade protection and come crying to the Justice Department to take anti-trust action against their competitors.

 

While hiding their money on Caribbean islands, f'ing over the American labor force, and generally using their big government influence to create private profit at taxpayer risk.

 

Oh yeah, and hiring low paid immigrants to run their gaudy hotels and casinos, then decrying the flow of immigrants as a threat to all that is America.

 

True capitalism would put your mother on an ice flow and your kids on the assembly line, so let's not over-romanticize its glory.

 

And cutting Social Security would be unpopular only because it's so incredibly stupid.

Holy sh*t... So incentivizing people to achieve, create wealth, and create opportunities for others to earn money to feed their families is a bad thing? And continuing to take people's hard earned money when they're likely never to see it again (aka ponzi scheme) is a good thing? If this truly is a growing sentiment in America, we're all screwed...

Social Security and Incentivized Wealth Creation are not at odds with each other, but nice try.

 

Now just imagine if Bush had managed to privatize Social Security as he wanted to do in 2007. All those nest eggs pouring into a stock market already wildly overvalued and about to collapse in capitalisms very own multi trillion dollar Ponzi scheme. All that Capital literally vanishing overnight.

 

Even without that scenario, hard working people lost trillions of dollars they will never see again in the global credit meltdown that wasn't exactly capitalisms finest hour.

 

And your issue is with Social Security?

 

Work hard. Invest how you want. But take a little comfort in social security because that's what it's there for.

 

And quite frankly, private industry benefits from social security for reasons I shouldn't have to explain to you.

[HuskerShark]

No person should be forced to invest in SS. It should be completely optional. That would be a capitalist program. Having a gun put to our heads (figuratively of course) and ordered to throw money into it when it's going to dry up and people from my generation will never see a dime of our own money that we were forced to pay into it.

 

If people didn't get 30% of their paycheck deducted through tax, SS, etc every month, we would not hear near as much about raising minimum wage. Of course there would be a few entitled individuals who would still push for it but would be way less.

[Moiraine]

No person should be forced to invest in SS. It should be completely optional. That would be a capitalist program. Having a gun put to our heads (figuratively of course) and ordered to throw money into it when it's going to dry up and people from my generation will never see a dime of our own money that we were forced to pay into it.

 

If people didn't get 30% of their paycheck deducted through tax, SS, etc every month, we would not hear near as much about raising minimum wage. Of course there would be a few entitled individuals who would still push for it but would be way less.

 

 

People who work full-time are entitled to a living wage whether you agree with it or not.

[cm husker]

 

 

No person should be forced to invest in SS. It should be completely optional. That would be a capitalist program. Having a gun put to our heads (figuratively of course) and ordered to throw money into it when it's going to dry up and people from my generation will never see a dime of our own money that we were forced to pay into it.

 

If people didn't get 30% of their paycheck deducted through tax, SS, etc every month, we would not hear near as much about raising minimum wage. Of course there would be a few entitled individuals who would still push for it but would be way less.

 

People who work full-time are entitled to a living wage whether you agree with it or not.

So, if a person works full time on their art, are they entitled to a living wage?

 

If a person works 40 hours per week flipping a burger, they are entitled to a living wage? What about the person who works 40 hours a week in a metal factory or scrubbing office toilets? Same living wage?

 

"Living wage" is a meaningless platitude. I don't even think most of its proponents really believe in it when you drill down a level.

 

If we are talking "living wage" as a form of redistribution, then let's be honest and deal with the concept of minimum income distributions. Because a minimum wage is a terrible way to achieve that by proxy, if for no other reason than it hurts the small burger joint far more than the McDonald's and the corner shop or pharmacy far more than Walmart and Walgreens.

[cm husker]

Oh yeah, and hiring low paid immigrants to run their gaudy hotels and casinos, then decrying the flow of immigrants as a threat to all that is America.

 

True capitalism would put your mother on an ice flow and your kids on the assembly line, so let's not over-romanticize its glory.

 

And cutting Social Security would be unpopular only because it's so incredibly stupid.

 

1. The most furvant people who are opposing open labor markets and freedom of movement are liberal labor advocates. The casino owners mostly love immigrarion, though maybe they have personal life issues with it.

 

2. The ice flow argument is just nonsense. That's not at all what a move to open market capitalism means. It actually means ever that the economy would be more productive (and we can discuss how to share that productivity), which means less ice flows. Because, recall, it wasn't capitalist societies, but rather communal, barter based civilizations who have been required to use "thin the herd" tactics, such as the true ice flow Inuits and the "one child" rules in China.

 

3. Social security relies on a vibrant market. The government is a chief investors in American stock markets as a result. And that's problematic on a number of levels. For as much as the politicians moan about rampant capitalism and bubbles, they have to institute policies that cause those very things in order to balance their books.

[HuskerShark]

 

No person should be forced to invest in SS. It should be completely optional. That would be a capitalist program. Having a gun put to our heads (figuratively of course) and ordered to throw money into it when it's going to dry up and people from my generation will never see a dime of our own money that we were forced to pay into it.

 

If people didn't get 30% of their paycheck deducted through tax, SS, etc every month, we would not hear near as much about raising minimum wage. Of course there would be a few entitled individuals who would still push for it but would be way less.

 

 

People who work full-time are entitled to a living wage whether you agree with it or not.

 

 

People are entitled to nothing. You get paid according to the value that you bring to the marketplace. That's capitalism. Sorry for the reality check. It's when people like Bernie get ahold of policies that things get out of balance. If McDonald's employees want $15 per hour, that's more incentive for employers to automate. There are already fast food and non-fast food restaurants implementing digital ordering systems. That's not caused by employers being greedy - it's caused by employees who provide little value being greedy and entitled.